Policy & Legislation

Toxic Chemicals have been found in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat, and in our body’s fat tissue, blood, and organs. Hundreds of chemicals in our air, water, soil and everyday products remain unregulated or inadequately tested for safety. Making informed consumer decisions on an individual level can reduce your own exposure but cannot eliminate it entirely. We need larger measures to reduce the burden of toxins in our air and water on a statewide and national scale.

The House and Senate have now overridden the Governor’s veto of the FY18 budget line 4510-0600, Environmental Health Assessment and Compliance. RE: An Act relative to drinking water and ground water research. This means the $25,000 earmark for the Silent Spring Institute, Inc. has been restored to the budget; however, this restoration is still dependent upon new revenue projections and the Administration’s decisions going forward.

By Representative Paul Frost of Auburn, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 2919) of Paul K. Frost and others for legislation to establish the drinking and ground water research trust fund. Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture.

Status: Reported to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Chapter 29 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 2RRRR, as inserted by section 48 of chapter 46 of the acts 2015, the following section:-

Section 2SSSS. There shall be established and set upon the books of the commonwealth a separate fund to be administered by the treasurer, as trustee, in consultation with the secretary of energy and environmental affairs and the commissioner of environmental protection, to be known as the Drinking and Ground Water Research Trust Fund to be used for the purposes of establishing a drinking and ground water research project in collaboration with Silent Spring Institute, Inc. There shall be credited to the fund any revenue from appropriations or other monies authorized by the general court and specifically designated to be credited to the fund, funds from public or private sources, including, but not limited to, gifts, grants, donations, rebates and settlements received by the commonwealth that are specifically designated to be credited to the fund, and any income derived from the investment of amounts credited to the fund. No expenditure from the fund shall cause the fund to be in deficiency at the close of a fiscal year. Monies deposited in the fund that are unexpended at the end of the fiscal year shall not revert to the General Fund and shall be available for expenditure in the subsequent fiscal year.

Status: Reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means (4/6/2016)

Amendment #706 to H4166 (New draft of H674)

Sponsor: Paul K. Frost

Status: Was not adopted after the House debated the amendments on the House floor (during week of 4/25/2016)

Mr. Paul Frost of Auburn moves to amend the bill by adding the following new section:

“SECTION XXXX. Silent Spring Institute shall be expended $150,000 for water quality research to detect hormone disruptors, carcinogens, and other water contaminants across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

Amendment #701 to H4166 (New draft of H674)

Sponsor: Paul K. Frost

Status: Was not adopted after the House debated the amendments on the House floor (during week of 4/25/2016)

Section 2SSSS. There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a separate fund to be administered by the treasurer, as trustee, in consultation with the secretary of energy and environmental affairs and the commissioner of environmental protection, to be known as the Drinking and Ground Water Research Trust Fund to be used for the purposes of establishing a drinking and ground water research project in collaboration with Silent Spring Institute, Inc. There shall be credited to the fund any revenue from appropriations or other monies authorized by the general court and specifically designated to be credited to the fund, funds from public or private sources, including, but not limited to, gifts, grants, donations, rebates and settlements received by the commonwealth that are specifically designated to be credited to the fund, and any income derived from the investment of amounts credited to the fund. No expenditure from the fund shall cause the fund to be in deficiency at the close of a fiscal year. Monies deposited in the fund that are unexpended at the end of the fiscal year shall not revert to the General Fund and shall be available for expenditure in the subsequent fiscal year.

By Ms. Decker of Cambridge, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 2119) of Marjorie C. Decker and others to prohibit the distribution in commerce of children’s products and upholstered furniture containing certain flame retardants, and for other purposes. Public Safety and Homeland Security.

By Senator Creem, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1175) of Cynthia S. Creem, Carmine L. Gentile, Frank A. Moran, John W. Scibak and other members of the General Court for legislation to protect children and families from harmful flame retardants. Public Health.

By Ms. Creem, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1132) of Cynthia S. Creem, Kathleen O’Connor Ives, Jay R. Kaufman, Chris Walsh and other members of the General Court for legislation to protect children and families from harmful flame retardants. Public Health.

Sponsors: Cynthia S. Creem

Status: Reported favorably out of the Joint Committee on Public Health (4/15/15). House concurred (4/15/16)

Accompanies a new draft, S2200 (3/31/16)

Senate — Committee recommended ought to pass with an amendment, substituting therefore a new draft, see S2293 (5/12/16)
Senate — Order relative to subject matter adopted (5/12/16)
Senate — Placed in the Orders of the Day for Thursday, May 19, 2016 (5/12/16)
Senate — Read second (5/19/16)
Senate — New draft substituted, see S2293 (5/19/16)
Senate — Passed to be engrossed – see Roll Call #304 [YEAS 39 – NAYS 0] (5/19/16)
House — Read; and referred to the committee on Health Care Financing (5/23/16)
House — Discharged to the committee on House Ways and Means (6/2/16)
Senate — Senate concurred (6/6/16)

By Mr. Donnelly, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 397) of Kenneth J. Donnelly, Jay R. Kaufman, Timothy R. Madden, Denise Provost and other members of the General Court for legislation relative to healthy families and businesses. Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture.

Bill H.2068 An Act requiring disclosure of solvents used in dry cleanning

By Mr. Smizik of Brookline, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 2068) of Frank I. Smizik and others relative to the disclosure requirements for dry cleaners using toxic chemicals. Public Health.

Supporting federal policy is a great way to work towards country-wide breast cancer prevention. We have too many large-scale risks in the United States in terms of daily chemical exposure. These proposed bills would help reduce exposure to toxins in what we eat, drink, breathe, and touch.S.697 – Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (of 1976) to reauthorize and modernize that Act, and for other purposes. The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition did not support this version of the bill as it was not comprehensive enough to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals of concern. Sponsor: Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) Introduced 3/10/15Latest Action: 06/18/2015 Senator Inhofe from Committee on Environment and Public Works filed written report. Report No. 114-67. Minority views filed.
Read more on the Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/697/all-infoWhat is it?In May 2011 MBCC traveled to Capitol Hill to discuss with Senators and their staff MBCC’s support to pass the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. On July 25th 2012, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works voted on it favorably, making this the first time in over three decades a senate panel voted to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The bill was then sent to the full senate for a vote and died with the end of the 2012-2013 legislative session.The Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (CSIA) was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (1924 – 2013) of New Jersey along with Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana in May of 2013. It is the bipartisan counterpart, or replacement, to the Safe Chemicals Act but it did not include the same level of protection and was a step in the wrong direction. This seemingly tripartite effort of Republicans, Democrats, and the American Chemistry Council failed to correct many existing flaws of TSCA.S.697 will only require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to start review of 25 chemicals within 5 years and allows the agency at least 7 years (yes, seven years) to review each chemical. However, the EPA estimates that there are over 1,000 chemicals that need immediate review. How many more generations will be negatively affected by potentially harmful chemicals if this bill is enacted?MBCC once again asks isn’t it better to be safe and restrict potentially harmful chemicals now, than be sorry once their burden and impact takes hold of another generation?No more “safe until proven toxic” chemical policy – we need to take action to prevent breast cancer before they start!For more information about the Chemicals Safety Improvement Act and the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition’s advocacy efforts, please visit:

CSIA lacks key measures to ensure that the new chemical management policy is effective at protecting the public from exposure to chemicals of concern:

It does not specifically include verbiage to address the protection of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, children, workers, and environmental justice communities.

A broad and vaguely written state pre-emption clause could have a potentially devastating impact on state-based chemical policies such as the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act and California’s Proposition 65.

The bill does not include a hazard-based section giving the EPA ability to act quickly on the worst chemicals such as those that are persistent and bioaccumulative.

Unlike the Safe Chemicals Act, CSIA does not set deadlines for required action, creating the possibility of stalemates on chemical regulation or restriction.

Chemicals would be categorized as high or low priority, but the criteria for listing chemicals as “low priority” is vague. This generates concern that the EPA will be overwhelmed with recommendations for chemicals to be listed as “low priority” without sharing enough health and safety information about the impacts of exposure.

S.1014 – Personal Care Products Safety ActTo amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes (H.R.2359)Sponsor: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Introduced 4/20/15Latest Action: 04/20/15 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.Read More on the Personal Care Products Safety Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1014 What is it?This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require cosmetics companies to register their facilities with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to submit to the FDA cosmetic ingredient statements that include the amounts of a cosmetic’s ingredients. Companies must pay a facility registration fee based on their annual gross sales of cosmetics. The collected fees can only be used for cosmetic safety activities.If the FDA determines that a cosmetic has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences, it may prohibit the cosmetic’s distribution by suspending the cosmetic ingredient statement. If other cosmetics from the same facility may be affected, the FDA may prohibit distribution from the facility by suspending the facility’s registration.
The FDA must review the safety of at least five cosmetic ingredients each year, and it may establish conditions for safe use of an ingredient, including a limit on the amount of the ingredient or a requirement for a warning label. A cosmetic cannot be sold if it contains an ingredient that is not safe, not safe under the recommended conditions of use, or not safe in the amount present in the cosmetic. Cosmetics companies are required to report to the FDA any serious adverse health event associated with their cosmetics. The FDA must:

Develop and implement cosmetic manufacturing standards that are consistent with existing national and international standards.

Inspect a company’s cosmetic safety records.

Recall a cosmetic that is likely to cause serious adverse health consequences.

Encourage cosmetic safety testing practices that minimize the use of animals.

Request your State Representative and State Senator’s support in the amount of $647,500 for the first year of a three-year proposal for comprehensive water quality research to be conducted by Silent Spring Institute.